Let the suit be presented for collection and comparison on the basis of section 118 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XXXVII, RR 2 and 3 Laws on the evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 78, 79 and 84 note. Defend, on appeal of the appellant about the signatures and thumb impressions, the apparatus compromised by the powers of the court, note the promise of the new petition and the implementation of its receipt, the trial court's evidence showed the appellant's request and the defense However, after becoming a party, the respondents' case was decided and the recording of evidence and the recording of the appellant's appeal in the appellant's appeals. Wine hearings and court orders hearing that it was a matter of Primorye on notes and invoices submitted in evidence by the defendant appellant claimed that he had refused his signature. On the Promotion Note and its receipt, therefore, these documents cannot be considered as negotiable instruments, that the stamps on the promissory note were not canceled, and there were impressions printed on the invoice, not on the written note, therefore, Evidence of this could not be presented. That once the documents were signed and the thumb impressions were denied, the trial court was obliged to send the matter to the writing expert under Article 78 of the Legislative Martyrdom 1984 and signed the signature and thumb impressions. Could not self-compare and once the signatures were denied the implementation of the said documents, there was no speculation on these documents under Section 118 of the Conversation Tool Act, 1881, and the respondent on the other hand responded. The giver was obliged to prove his execution, c
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
